Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 In May 1970, Gregory Hess took part in an antiwar demonstration on the campus of Indiana University. As the crowd of protesters grew to encompass 100 to 150 people “both the Sheriff’s Department and the Bloomington Police department were asked to help university officials and police remove demonstrators blocking doorways to a campus building” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.
S. 105).
After two arrests, remaining protesters moved onto streets and curbs and “did not respond to verbal directions from the sheriff to clear the streets” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) ).
While the sheriff and other officers tried to disperse the remaining demonstrators, Mr. Hess, stood on a nearby curb and shouted, “We ” ll take the fucking street later” or “We ” ll take the fucking street again” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105).
The Sheriff reacted by arresting Mr.
Hess and charging him with “disorderly conduct” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105).
According to witnesses at the trial, Hess’s words were “no louder than other statements by other demonstrators” and he didn’t “appear to be addressing any particular person or group” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) ).
Therefore, the court utilized “Indiana’s disorderly conduct statute” and only Hess’s words were punished (Hess v.
Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) ).
However, when the case went before the Indiana Supreme Court they found “Hess’s statement was intended to incite further lawless action on the part of the crowd in the vicinity of the appellant and was likely to produce such action” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S.
The Essay on Water Balance Of Berkeley, California And Terre Haute, Indiana
Abstract This paper discovers the water budget for Berkeley, California in comparison to Terre Haute, Indiana. The two cities precipitation differs throughout the twelve month calendar year where many of the heavy precipitation months are totally opposite. Berkeley California’s winters, where the majority of rain occurs and Terre Haute, Indiana where the rainfall is observed as consistently ...
105).
Thus, the State Court ruled Mr. Hess’s speech was not protected because it was “producing imminent lawless action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969) and posed a “clear and present danger” (Hess v.
Indiana, 414 U. S. 105).
So the question emerged can speech pose a clear and present danger if it is not directed at a specific group of individuals? Mr.
Hess believed that it could not and deemed his 1 st amendment right to free speech had been violated. Therefore, he took his case before the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court disagreed with the Indiana court’s findings and in a per curiam opinion found that “there was no evidence” from the witnesses “or rational inference from the import of language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) ).
In other words, the court held that for speech to be considered a clear and present danger it must prove to “incite imminent action” (Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) ).
Therefore, Mr. Hess’s speech was protected since it could not be proven that it presented any substantiated threat of action “that might be harmful to the nation” (Pember 53).
Justice Rehnquist’s and Justice Blackmun’s dissent questioned the validity of the witness’s statements that testified on behalf of the defendant and found the decision questionable, since the ruling was heavily based on the delivery of Hess’s statement from their testimony. They concurred there was no concrete evidence showing to whom the statement was directed, and because of this uncertainty it was difficult to presume if action was being called upon. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973) is an important case because it challenged “Justice Holmes’s clear and present danger test” which first appeared in his “opinion for the court” in the prior restraint case of Sch neck v.
The Term Paper on Supreme Court Cases Constitutional Issue
Supreme Court Cases Engle vs. Vitale Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the ...
U. S. , 249 U. S. 47 (1919) (Redish 2).
This test can also be found in the other prior restraint cases of Abrams v.
U. S. , 250 U. S. 616 (1919), Git low v.
New York, 268 U. S. 652 (1925), Whitney v. California 274 U. S.
357 (1927), Dennis v. U. S. , 341 U. S. 494 (1951), Yates v.
U. S. , 354 U. S. 298 (1957) and Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.
S. 444 (1969), but all of theses cases left “unresolved questions about the test” (Redish 3).
Therefore, Hess’s case further questioned “how much protection the first amendment gives to speech which advocates unlawful conduct” (Redish 3)? In addition, it proved that to prosecute on the basis of “clear and present danger”some imminence” must occur from the speech (Redish 3).
Works Cited “Hess v.
Indiana, No. 73-5290.” Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe. Online. Internet. 9 May 2002.
Pember, Don R. Mass Media Law. 2001-2002 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001-2002. Redish, Martin. “Advocacy of Unlawful Conduct and the First Amendment: In Defense of Clear and Present Danger.” Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe.
Online. Internet. 10 May 2002. United States. Supreme Court.
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973).
Online. Internet.
web 9 May 2002.
